Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | disciplerami | 72896 | ||
"what else needs to be said?" A LOT! I am left to wonder what you mean. Do you mean that Paul didn't baptize? You misunderstand what Paul is saying. The 1 Cor.1:17 passage should not be read out of context. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, vol.III, p.285: "St. Paul says this not to depreciate baptism, for he exalts it most highly (Rom. vi.3). He baptized some, and would have baptized more, but that his and the apostles' peculiar work was to preach the Gospel..." Paul had just earlier said, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius." Listen, because he tells why. "That no man should say you were baptized in my name." The Corinthians were divided according to who converted or taught them. Paul didn't care who did the baptizing. He certainly didn't want to be the focal point of their faith. We are properly baptized into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Paul continues. "Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanuas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other." If Paul meant by the statement in vs. 17 [that you quoted] that baptism wasn't important or necessary, then why did he baptize? Why did he baptize the jailer when it was past midnight? Why did he baptize Lydia along with her household? Why? So you see, your point is pointless. |
||||||
2 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | Taleb | 72924 | ||
In reference to Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 1, you quote, "He baptized some, and would have baptized more, but that his and the apostles' peculiar work was to preach the Gospel..." So you really DO agree, his peculiar work was to preach the Gospel, IS why Paul didn’t baptize more. Exactly. That is a rephrase of what others and I have said. IF Paul’s preaching the gospel included baptism as a take it all or leave it all package, Paul would been compelled to baptize everyone who believed his preaching ... yet Paul admitted he didn't baptize very many. But, then you change the side of your mouth and claim he didn't baptize more people because, “He certainly didn’t want to be the focal point of their faith.” Interesting theology, but we had better stick with what God says God said, rather than what men say God said. If I may quote you once again, “So you see, your point is pointless”. That seems to fit here. Perhaps you should go back to THE book instead of a book. :) Taleb |
||||||
3 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | disciplerami | 72972 | ||
You write: "In reference to Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 1, you quote, "He baptized some, and would have baptized more, but that his and the apostles' peculiar work was to preach the Gospel..." Taleb, this statement was a quote from JFB, the commentary. Paul's statement does not diminish baptism. It wasn't necessary for the one preaching Christ to be the same individual who went down into the water. If it does, then it diminishes the serving of tables and makes such works unnecessary. Because the Apostles would not serve tables in Acts 6 didn't mean the work wasn't necessary (see Acts 6). Paul often had disciples with him, so it would not be strange for them to do the baptizing. You write: "Interesting theology, but we had better stick with what God says" There is no contradiction in what I said. It is an 'all or nothing package', but that doesn't require that Paul be the individual going down into the water. I'm very certain that Paul taught everyone the Gospel, and that included getting baptized. If he was not the person who baptized them, others could do it. I think you missed the point. Good day. |
||||||